early 209 Heavy1264 (209.05.04)

The legitimacy of the assertion that the introduction fee paid at the time of land acquisition should be deemed necessary expenses

The amount paid at the time of land acquisition shall be deemed necessary expenses, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

o○

Head of the Pakistan Tax Office

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the litigation costs.

The defendant's imposition of capital gains tax of 150,405,460 won and resident tax of 15,040,540 won shall be revoked on December 1, 2008.

1. Circumstances of dispositions;

A. On March 26, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased from △△ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△△ Construction”), on March 11, 2002, the Plaintiff purchased from ○○○○-ri 61-11 forest land and 23,326 square meters (which was divided into 273-4 forest and 3,072 square meters, and 10 square meters, respectively; hereinafter “the instant land”) of 70 square meters of forest and 720 square meters of forest and 70 square meters of forest and 70 square meters of forest and 1,171 square meters of forest and 270-1 forest and 171 square meters of forest and 2 lots (hereinafter “the instant land, etc.”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant land.

B. The instant land was sold to SungA for KRW 1,611,00,000 in the auction procedure on September 1, 2004.

C. The Defendant recognized the acquisition value of the pertinent land, etc. as KRW 1,046,00,000 in the actual transaction price investigation of the instant land, and calculated the acquisition value of the instant land as KRW 969,948,872 in proportion to the standard market price ratio. After calculating the amount as KRW 279,00,000, such as brokerage commission paid by the Plaintiff to KimB, etc., the Defendant issued the instant disposition imposing KRW 150,40,460, resident tax, and KRW 15,040,540 on December 1, 2008.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without any dispute, Gap 1, 2, 9, Eul 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff acquired the instant land from △△ Construction in KRW 1,212,00,000, and separately purchased the instant land from △△ Construction in KRW 50,000,000. As such, the acquisition value of the instant land should be KRW 1,212,00,000, since the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from △△ Construction in KRW 1,212,000,000. Even if not, the Plaintiff paid KRW 250,00,000 to KimB, who introduced the purchase of the instant land by the agent of △△△ Construction on April 30, 202, the said money should be recognized as necessary expenses.

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) Determination of the purchase price for the instant land, etc.

According to the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff acquired the instant land, etc. from △△ Construction on March 11, 2002 at KRW 1,046,00,000, considering the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2,3,5,14, and the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1,212,00,000, as well as the overall purport of the argument as to △△ Construction. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that only the instant land was acquired at KRW 1,212,00 is without merit.

① In the process of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff submitted a sales contract two copies of a sales contract and one copy of a sales contract concerning the instant land, etc. (the date when the sales contract was concluded on March 11, 2002) and one copy of a sales contract concerning the instant land, etc. (the date when the Plaintiff entered into the sales contract on March 11, 2002 as to the instant land, etc.). In addition, the remaining payment date ( March 26, 2002) corresponds to the registration date of the instant land, etc., and the remaining payment date (the remaining payment date) is consistent with the registration date of the instant land, etc.; in light of the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the down payment amount of KRW 50,000,000 as stated in the said contract to △△△ Construction, which is the date when the said contract was concluded, to the Plaintiff, the said sales contract conforms with the actual contents of the contract concerning the instant land, etc. on the date when the Plaintiff claims otherwise.

② Under the sales contract dated March 11, 2002, the seller of the instant land, etc., sold the instant land, etc. to the Plaintiff for KRW 1,046,00,000,000, and the accounting was conducted on the premise that each of the remainder amounting to KRW 556,000,000, which is the date of concluding the contract from the Plaintiff, was paid from the Plaintiff, as part of the remainder amount of KRW 50,000,00,000, which is the date of concluding the contract.

③ On September 2002, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for the instant land, and around September 2002, around 00, to purchase an additional purchase of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 for 0 ○○○○, 720,000,000 in the neighboring area of the instant land and KRW 270-1,000 in the same Ri, and to pay KRW 50,00,000 to △△△△ on September 27, 200, the Plaintiff did not submit a separate sales contract, etc. for each of the instant land.

2) As to the assertion that since the Plaintiff paid KRW 250,000,000 to GimB on April 30, 2002, it should be included in the necessary expenses.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 250,00,000 to KimB, who was represented by △△△ on April 30, 2002, as the intermediate payment of the purchase price for the instant land, and even if the said money was not paid to △△ Construction, insofar as the said money was paid to KimB, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 250,00,000 to △△△ as above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise (the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000 to △△△△△△△ on March 11, 2002). The Plaintiff’s assertion that the said money should be deducted as necessary expenses, but it is difficult to accept that the Plaintiff directly paid KRW 250,00,000,000 to △△△△△ after receiving only receipts from KimB, who was represented by △△△△, and then directly paid KRW 250,000,00).

3.In conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.